Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

So you basically rate JV and Hill at a similar level to Hamilton?

No I'd put Hamilton higher

Rosberg was respectively competitive with Hamilton.

He was indeed. But I'd still put Hamilton higher. Wouldn't you?

I'm kind of wondering how you squeeze JV and Hill into the gap between Hamilton and Rosberg?

Frustratingly there is no logic being used when the logic is available, Massa beat a 34 year old JV when they raced at Sauber, one of the few drivers that Massa managed to beat. Massa got beat 3 years on the trot by Bottas a driver widely accepted as not being as good as Rosberg.

Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

No, it was actually Eddie Irvine who described how, when being lapped by the two of them, the leading Benetton at the Brazilian GP looked as if it was on rails, while the Williams was all over the place and had no business being so close to Schumacher. I believe I can find the source for it.

I agree with Pokerman that Senna was faster than Hill, but their relative speed could only really be compared from a single race, and three qualifying sessions. Brazil was the only race that allows us to see how hard Senna had to work to stay anywhere near the Benetton. And let's not forget that Senna, who only got to really compete in two races (Brazil and Imola), made a very serious mistake in every one of them. One of which killed him.I don't know what Patrick O'Brien's views of Schumacher, Senna and Hill was from the three GP's early in 1994, or how he calculated the difference between Hill and Schumacher following Imola. But his system allowed him to have a much more objective view than most of us on this forum.

I said this before, but I believe Senna's speed was in part a result of accepting far greater risks than any other driver on the grid, besides his obvious tremendous talent. It would be stupid to expect Hill to take the same kinds of risk, being married and having children. (And that is putting it politely.)

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

This is confusing. You are comparing Senna outqualifying Schumacher in different cars to try and get hypothetically how close Hill would be on the same car? It does not compute...

Me Senna was much quicker than Hill is factual, you saying it would have been much closer if Senna had lived is not factual.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

No, it was actually Eddie Irvine who described how, when being lapped by the two of them, the leading Benetton at the Brazilian GP looked as if it was on rails, while the Williams was all over the place and had no business being so close to Schumacher. I believe I can find the source for it.

I agree with Pokerman that Senna was faster than Hill, but their relative speed could only really be compared from a single race, and three qualifying sessions. Brazil was the only race that allows us to see how hard Senna had to work to stay anywhere near the Benetton. And let's not forget that Senna, who only got to really compete in two races (Brazil and Imola), made a very serious mistake in every one of them. One of which killed him.I don't know what Patrick O'Brien's views of Schumacher, Senna and Hill was from the three GP's early in 1994, or how he calculated the difference between Hill and Schumacher following Imola. But his system allowed him to have a much more objective view than most of us on this forum.

I said this before, but I believe Senna's speed was in part a result of accepting far greater risks than any other driver on the grid, besides his obvious tremendous talent. It would be stupid to expect Hill to take the same kinds of risk, being married and having children. (And that is putting it politely.)

Ah, thanks for the correction.

In case I didn't make myself clear, I'm not suggesting Hill was Senna's equal, just that the gap between the two of them was likely exacerbated by the fact the Williams was extremely difficult to drive: in a more balanced car, I'd imagine Hill would likely have been a little closer

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

sorry, I did answer this but then the white pages deleted it all. I'll come back and do it again when I can summon up the energy.

I'm not sure either one is factual. Senna and Hill were only teammates for three race weekends. Over those, Senna was much faster. That's as far as you can get from a factual standpoint. To prove that Senna was simply much faster than Hill as a constant, you'd have to get to the point where the car was winning races in Hill's hands and see how much farther ahead Senna still was - something we'll never know.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

No, it was actually Eddie Irvine who described how, when being lapped by the two of them, the leading Benetton at the Brazilian GP looked as if it was on rails, while the Williams was all over the place and had no business being so close to Schumacher. I believe I can find the source for it.

I agree with Pokerman that Senna was faster than Hill, but their relative speed could only really be compared from a single race, and three qualifying sessions. Brazil was the only race that allows us to see how hard Senna had to work to stay anywhere near the Benetton. And let's not forget that Senna, who only got to really compete in two races (Brazil and Imola), made a very serious mistake in every one of them. One of which killed him.I don't know what Patrick O'Brien's views of Schumacher, Senna and Hill was from the three GP's early in 1994, or how he calculated the difference between Hill and Schumacher following Imola. But his system allowed him to have a much more objective view than most of us on this forum.

I said this before, but I believe Senna's speed was in part a result of accepting far greater risks than any other driver on the grid, besides his obvious tremendous talent. It would be stupid to expect Hill to take the same kinds of risk, being married and having children. (And that is putting it politely.)

Ah, thanks for the correction.

In case I didn't make myself clear, I'm not suggesting Hill was Senna's equal, just that the gap between the two of them was likely exacerbated by the fact the Williams was extremely difficult to drive: in a more balanced car, I'd imagine Hill would likely have been a little closer

No no, you were clear, I added that part more for Pokerman. And it is abundantly clear that the true speed gap between Senna and Hill wasn't what we saw in those first three qualifying sessions of 1994, partly for the reasons I mentioned. I couldn't help but wonder at the time why Mansell was brought in for a number of races that year. His speed was still fine, but I felt it had more to do with Bernie's need to attract bums to his seats, than because of a true need Williams was supposed to have felt.

I'm still wondering what Irvine's comment concerning Senna's technique was all about.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

To support his son's racing, Rolf Schumacher took on a second job renting and repairing karts, while his wife worked at the track's canteen. Nevertheless, when Michael needed a new engine costing 800 DM, his parents were unable to afford it; he was able to continue racing with support from local businessmen.[

It doesn't seem that he had much of a better economic background than e.g Hamilton.

I think the claim that the field of drivers today is far more talented is subjective, not objective. Many would disagree

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

Don't you see some parallels there? The fact that JV 's career collapsed but Hamilton's took off is another matter. But as far as first two years' results go, they are pretty comparable. Slightly different scenarios, sure, and Hamilton had a bigger task against a tougher team mate, sure again. But the results were similar, I can't see how this is even disputed, 2nd in the debut year, 1st in the second.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

Look Zoue, I'm not your shrink and I have no interest in talking about your feelings with you. JV's first 2 years were years where the car carried him to the success he achieved. He was easily bested by Hill as a rookie and, despite having a completely dominant car, made a meal of winning the title in his second year. Hamilton was not in a dominant car, bested his WDC teammate as a rookie and then won the championship in the second best car in year two. If you want to claim that they are "almost identical" then I'm going to have to disagree. Did I say that nicely enough for you?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

This is confusing. You are comparing Senna outqualifying Schumacher in different cars to try and get hypothetically how close Hill would be on the same car? It does not compute...

...but it computes perfectly alright to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna so we have some imaginary performance gap that Hill lives in that has no actual measurement?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

The Williams car itself became much more competitive.

How fast was Senna?

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

sorry, I did answer this but then the white pages deleted it all. I'll come back and do it again when I can summon up the energy.

You think it reasonable to say that Hill would have closed the gap to Senna almost as a fact?

I think there is some evidence historically that superior drivers really hammer that superiority home when they have to deal with cars that are not easy to drive. And it's well known that the 1994 A spec Williams was a serious handful. I believe it was Schumacher who commented that driving behind Senna he could see how much Senna was having to fight the car, while after Senna's death and with the changes they made to the Williams B spec, Hill was suddenly much ore competitive. And some of Schumacher's team mates famously struggled with cars that Schumacher was able to set poles and win races with. Kimi is probably the most famous recent example where he gets more competitive the easier the car is to drive. I don';t believe I ever said it was a fact that Hill would have closed the gap, just that I thought that might happen. Hill was pretty quick at times, so if he would consistently be some 6 tenths slower than Senna then how fast would that make Senna?

No, it was actually Eddie Irvine who described how, when being lapped by the two of them, the leading Benetton at the Brazilian GP looked as if it was on rails, while the Williams was all over the place and had no business being so close to Schumacher. I believe I can find the source for it.

I agree with Pokerman that Senna was faster than Hill, but their relative speed could only really be compared from a single race, and three qualifying sessions. Brazil was the only race that allows us to see how hard Senna had to work to stay anywhere near the Benetton. And let's not forget that Senna, who only got to really compete in two races (Brazil and Imola), made a very serious mistake in every one of them. One of which killed him.I don't know what Patrick O'Brien's views of Schumacher, Senna and Hill was from the three GP's early in 1994, or how he calculated the difference between Hill and Schumacher following Imola. But his system allowed him to have a much more objective view than most of us on this forum.

I said this before, but I believe Senna's speed was in part a result of accepting far greater risks than any other driver on the grid, besides his obvious tremendous talent. It would be stupid to expect Hill to take the same kinds of risk, being married and having children. (And that is putting it politely.)

Ah, thanks for the correction.

In case I didn't make myself clear, I'm not suggesting Hill was Senna's equal, just that the gap between the two of them was likely exacerbated by the fact the Williams was extremely difficult to drive: in a more balanced car, I'd imagine Hill would likely have been a little closer

No no, you were clear, I added that part more for Pokerman. And it is abundantly clear that the true speed gap between Senna and Hill wasn't what we saw in those first three qualifying sessions of 1994, partly for the reasons I mentioned. I couldn't help but wonder at the time why Mansell was brought in for a number of races that year. His speed was still fine, but I felt it had more to do with Bernie's need to attract bums to his seats, than because of a true need Williams was supposed to have felt.

I'm still wondering what Irvine's comment concerning Senna's technique was all about.

Indeed a flawed technique in which he managed to out qualify Schumacher in an inferior car.

I don't think so. I don't think many would say that the field in the late 90's/early 00's was more talented than today's field at all. I think you'd get a near unanimous vote for today's field with the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Max, Dan, etc. over a field who's second best driver was Damon Hill. Additionally; you would have to include the drivers that were out there earlier in Hamilton and Vettel's careers; like Button, Kubica, Rosberg, etc. All of whom are superior to the likes of Jacques Villeneuve or Damon Hill and many of whom are superior to Hakkinen as well.

What is objective is that the talent pool in motor sports got deeper and deeper up through the first decade of the 00's. That was largely due to involvement from business in sponsoring young drivers. Using a single anecdote about Michael Schumacher is not particularly relevant when discussing the entire motor sports landscape.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The second paragraph is something I also meant to address so thank you for the trouble, I thought any comparisons between Hamilton and JV had now finally ended but alas no.

Well Alonso started his F1 career in 2001, so participated in both "eras." As did Kimi. Personally I'd put Hakkinen above Rosberg and I'm pretty confident I'm not alone in that. I'd be inclined to put JV and Hill above him, too, although not sure how widespread that opinion would be, tbh. Different times, different types of cars but IIRC Rubens was reasonably competitive against Button and he was never really considered one of the elite of his time, while quite a number of people rate JB fairly highly.

There are always going to be outliers and it's impossible to do a complete like-for like comparison but I see no evidence that the drivers today are in any way ahead of the drivers of any other era, and certainly not "far" ahead as you claimed.

As to dismissing the Schumacher anecdote, I'm not sure how your unsupported claims should get a free pass while my factual example to the contrary should be considered irrelevant. Bit strange.

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

Don't you see some parallels there? The fact that JV 's career collapsed but Hamilton's took off is another matter. But as far as first two years' results go, they are pretty comparable. Slightly different scenarios, sure, and Hamilton had a bigger task against a tougher team mate, sure again. But the results were similar, I can't see how this is even disputed, 2nd in the debut year, 1st in the second.

JV's career collapsed because he needed a car better than the opposition to obtain those kind of results.

Fast enough to consistently out qualify Schumacher in an undriveable car.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

sorry, I did answer this but then the white pages deleted it all. I'll come back and do it again when I can summon up the energy.

Short version: Hill beat Mansell, comfortably

Not in qualifying.

In what universe? They had four races together, and Hill beat Mansell in three of the qualifying sessions. The fourth session was influenced by rain. And Hill beat Mansell in every race (in the final one, where Hill famously got hit by Schumacher, he passed Mansell right at the start and was leading him). So how is Hill not the victor in this scenario?

Let me help you with that. Hakkinen above Rosberg is not absurd. I think you'd find people who agree with that. Personally I peg them as about equal overall but it's not ridiculous to say that Hakkinen was better. Hill and JV are a different story though. Damon Hill raced some top drivers in the same car. He raced people like Mansell, Prost and Senna in the same car and he was never a threat to any of them. He simply wasn't on that level. Hill was not a top-shelf driver. Honestly I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Hill was on par with Rosberg. As for JV; he wasn't even on par with Hill...He teamed with Button later in his career and was demolished comprehensively. Again, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that he's better than Rosberg. Rosberg kept Hamilton honest for 4 years and he bested an older Michael Schumacher for three years. You may not want to give him the respect he's earned but his track record speaks for itself.

By the way, my claims are not "unsupported". It is a fact that the number of participants in motor sport has risen almost exponentially over the last 30-40 years. In addition to the larger number of participants; you have people competing from a younger and younger age. This basically guarantees that you will end up with superior talent/skill at the top levels as is evident when you look at the grid these last few years. Your "factual example" refers to only one man and is totally irrelevant from a logical standpoint when assessing the landscape of an entire sport. No one said it was impossible for someone to make it if they weren't wealthy; only that the likelihood was much more slim. Producing a single example (an example of literally the best driver of the era) does not somehow disprove that.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

Look Zoue, I'm not your shrink and I have no interest in talking about your feelings with you. JV's first 2 years were years where the car carried him to the success he achieved. He was easily bested by Hill as a rookie and, despite having a completely dominant car, made a meal of winning the title in his second year. Hamilton was not in a dominant car, bested his WDC teammate as a rookie and then won the championship in the second best car in year two. If you want to claim that they are "almost identical" then I'm going to have to disagree. Did I say that nicely enough for you?

Oddly enough, it's invariably you that brings my feelings into it. Strange for someone who has no interest in talking about it.

They had almost identical results in their first two years. If you want to deny that then yeah I'm happy to disagree

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

Look Zoue, I'm not your shrink and I have no interest in talking about your feelings with you. JV's first 2 years were years where the car carried him to the success he achieved. He was easily bested by Hill as a rookie and, despite having a completely dominant car, made a meal of winning the title in his second year. Hamilton was not in a dominant car, bested his WDC teammate as a rookie and then won the championship in the second best car in year two. If you want to claim that they are "almost identical" then I'm going to have to disagree. Did I say that nicely enough for you?

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

The Williams car became more driveable. It was massively difficult to drive at the beginning of the year:

Adrian Newey: “Having active suspension banned was a big setback to our 1994 programme. I have to admit that in designing the 1994 car I underestimated how important it was going to be to get a very broad ride-height map again. I think, having been away from passive cars for longer than anyone else, I disadvantaged us slightly. So when the FW16 first came out it was too ride-height sensitive, which made it very tricky to drive, even for someone of Ayrton's huge talent. It was very difficult to handle over a race distance”

The Wiki page gives a good overall view and also tells how difficult the car was to drive. Senna's talent largely compensated but it improved massively after Senna's death:

In addition, at a television program on the 20th anniversary of Imola 1994, Gerhard Berger recalled a conversation he had with Senna at the race in which Senna said "We are now finally aware of the problem with this car and in two or three weeks from now the problems should be solved."[7] The FW16 indeed became more competitive after this timeframe.

Following the Imola changes the car was again incrementally updated and labelled as FW16B by the German Grand Prix. This version featured a longer wheelbase, revised front and rear wing, shortened sidepods and the compulsory opened rear on the airbox and cowling in accordance with FIA regulations following the accidents at Imola. The shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned. This version of the car proved to be very fast. Hill battled Schumacher for the championship but lost by a single point in the final race in Australia, Nigel Mansell won that race, securing the Constructors' Championship for Williams.

The car almost completely changed in its second iteration. And yes, Senna's talent was such that he could put the thing on pole even with all the issues it had

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

sorry, I did answer this but then the white pages deleted it all. I'll come back and do it again when I can summon up the energy.

Short version: Hill beat Mansell, comfortably

Not in qualifying.

In what universe? They had four races together, and Hill beat Mansell in three of the qualifying sessions. The fourth session was influenced by rain. And Hill beat Mansell in every race (in the final one, where Hill famously got hit by Schumacher, he passed Mansell right at the start and was leading him). So how is Hill not the victor in this scenario?

That looks reasonable close to me bearing in mind that Hill was in the car all season, I seem to be having a few parallel debates, a driver can apparently be in a car all season but still lack testing mileage.

It can never be proven or disproven, since it's wholly conjecture in the first place. But the example given does raise questions about how accurate it is. And, by the way, Hill also struggled with financing and had to fight for recognition, as did Mansell, who famously mortgaged his house just so that he could compete. You're making a blanket statement but you don't really have anything to base it on beyond simple speculation. That's all I'm highlighting.

As for the rest...fair comments. I don't personally agree but can see the logic. I don't think being beaten by Prost shows he's poor and it's not like Hill scored terribly. We're talking his first proper season and he managed several wins. Not sure I understand what you mean about never being a threat to Mansell, though. For starters, they only raced together on three occasions and Hill outqualified Mansell on two of them (and finished ahead of him both times). And in the final race, Hill was already ahead of Mansell when Schumacher turned into him, so had beaten him there. I'd say that qualified as him being a threat. I think he was a pretty decent driver and certainly in terms of racecraft I'd have him above Rosberg any day of the week. JV is a bit more controversial I guess, although people seem to forget he had an almost identical debut to Hamilton, finishing 2nd in his first year and clinching the title in his second. He was more mercurial I'd agree but I'd still rate him above Rosberg. Point is that's very much subjective, not objective as you tried to say earlier

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

Look Zoue, I'm not your shrink and I have no interest in talking about your feelings with you. JV's first 2 years were years where the car carried him to the success he achieved. He was easily bested by Hill as a rookie and, despite having a completely dominant car, made a meal of winning the title in his second year. Hamilton was not in a dominant car, bested his WDC teammate as a rookie and then won the championship in the second best car in year two. If you want to claim that they are "almost identical" then I'm going to have to disagree. Did I say that nicely enough for you?

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The qualities of the cars was not the same, JV had a far better car and a weaker teammate, Hamilton equaled Alonso whilst Hill was clearly stronger than JV.

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

Benetton 100% cheated in '94 with a variety of cheats, including traction control. Jos [Verstappen] has indicated such. As has Willem Toet also indicated.

Schumacher's deliberate punting of Hill @ Adelaide should have seen him severely punished, but the FIA were in Benetton's lap...

Senna craps on Schumacher in every respect (as did Prost/Clark and Fangio imho).

Some other noted points of interest that refute the cray Irish man's claims - Schumacher never had a top team mate. His #2 drivers were always #2 drivers, given inferior equipment and help to "team rules" to allow Schumacher the advantage.

Schumacher is an exceptionally poor example of a world champion imho. People call Senna dirty...in comparison to Schumacher, Senna was a saint.

Benetton 100% cheated in '94 with a variety of cheats, including traction control. Jos [Verstappen] has indicated such. As has Willem Toet also indicated.

Schumacher's deliberate punting of Hill @ Adelaide should have seen him severely punished, but the FIA were in Benetton's lap...

Senna craps on Schumacher in every respect (as did Prost/Clark and Fangio imho).

Some other noted points of interest that refute the cray Irish man's claims - Schumacher never had a top team mate. His #2 drivers were always #2 drivers, given inferior equipment and help to "team rules" to allow Schumacher the advantage.

Schumacher is an exceptionally poor example of a world champion imho. People call Senna dirty...in comparison to Schumacher, Senna was a saint.

I laugh at Irvine's ridiculous comments.

Wow.

I mean, i'm no fan of Schumacher's either but calling him "an exceptionally poor example of a world champion" is a big call.

With regards to your first paragraph; no it's not conjecture at all. It's fact. The emergence of various young driver support programs in the 90s and 00s is fact. That they basically did not exist prior to that is also fact. That the size of the talent pool grew with he availability of more sponsorship for young drivers is also fact. That there has been increasing participation in motorsports over the last several decades is also fact. That drivers begin racing from a younger age now and progress to single-seaters at a younger age is, again, fact. What I said is NOT conjecture nor is it speculation.

As for the second paragraph; to say that Hill had better racecraft than Rosebrg is not absurd but Nico is on a different level in terms of speed. Not sure where any logical basis for an argument to the contrary would come from. Also JV didn't have an identical first 2 years to Hamilton at all. He was in a car that was more dominant than the Mercedes in 2015-2016 during his first two years while Hamilton was in the 2nd best car on the grid during his first 2 years. JV lost to his teammate (Hill) in his first year while Hamilton beat his teammate (Alonso - vastly superior to Hill) in his rookie season. To say their first two years were identical shows a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I know all this, you just asked me how fast was Senna, a driver that out qualified Schumacher, we're not talking about Hill here, in such a car, but with the car better sorted car Hill would have been much closer than the 0.6s gap to Senna ignoring the massive gap in the first race, so how close would Hill have been to the slower Schumacher in the same car?

Referencing another thread, a then washed up overweight 41 year old Nigel Mansell did 4 races for Williams and was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, the following year the rookie DC was able to match Hill's qualifying speed, DC a driver that went on to be dominated in qualifying by Hakkinen, Kimi and Webber.

With the latter sentence I guess I have circled back to the thread and the drivers during the Schumacher year's being the better than the drivers of today, do the numbers really add up for Hill?

sorry, I did answer this but then the white pages deleted it all. I'll come back and do it again when I can summon up the energy.

Short version: Hill beat Mansell, comfortably

Not in qualifying.

In what universe? They had four races together, and Hill beat Mansell in three of the qualifying sessions. The fourth session was influenced by rain. And Hill beat Mansell in every race (in the final one, where Hill famously got hit by Schumacher, he passed Mansell right at the start and was leading him). So how is Hill not the victor in this scenario?

That looks reasonable close to me bearing in mind that Hill was in the car all season, I seem to be having a few parallel debates, a driver can apparently be in a car all season but still lack testing mileage.

Which corroborates what I wrote, thanks, although you seemingly missed out that the final qualifying was wet. Again, how is this not a victory for Hill?

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The qualities of the cars was not the same, JV had a far better car and a weaker teammate, Hamilton equaled Alonso whilst Hill was clearly stronger than JV.

Pokerman, I can't make sense of what you wrote there. Please make up your mind; was Hill stronger or weaker than Villeneuve? Or do you mean that Frentzen was weaker than Villeneuve? Frentzen, who took Jordan into contention in 1999?

I also don't understand what you're saying about the cars. Villeneuve may have won his title in a superior car. That is the normal state of affairs.In his first year Hamilton had a car that was at least as good as the Ferrari. Without his team engaging in industrial espionage, it would have won the constructors' title. In Hamilton's second year, he may have had a weaker team-mate, but again a car that was roughly the equal of the Ferrari, as is suggested by the tightness of the result for the drivers' title. And that time they were allowed to compete for the constructors' title. And to borrow a phrase from Jenson Button a few years later, the car in 2008 was "his".

_________________Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

I think Poker's point is fairly simple. The actual results between Hamilton and JV may have been quite similar in their first 2 years, but the level of performances required to achieve those results was not similar at all.

I think Poker's point is fairly simple. The actual results between Hamilton and JV may have been quite similar in their first 2 years, but the level of performances required to achieve those results was not similar at all.

And I fully agree to this (although I think that the car-wise dominance of Williams fully vanished in the course of the 1997 season).

Just a note on the cross-teammate comparisons:Alonso > D. Hill, agreed. But surely also Frentzen > Kovalainen, or?

Benetton 100% cheated in '94 with a variety of cheats, including traction control. Jos [Verstappen] has indicated such. As has Willem Toet also indicated.

Schumacher's deliberate punting of Hill @ Adelaide should have seen him severely punished, but the FIA were in Benetton's lap...

Senna craps on Schumacher in every respect (as did Prost/Clark and Fangio imho).

Some other noted points of interest that refute the cray Irish man's claims - Schumacher never had a top team mate. His #2 drivers were always #2 drivers, given inferior equipment and help to "team rules" to allow Schumacher the advantage.

Schumacher is an exceptionally poor example of a world champion imho. People call Senna dirty...in comparison to Schumacher, Senna was a saint.

I laugh at Irvine's ridiculous comments.

Wow.

I mean, i'm no fan of Schumacher's either but calling him "an exceptionally poor example of a world champion" is a big call.

Blake'll get a kick out of reading this.

Indeed, jezza, I did get a kick out of that post! if it were April, I would have suspected an "April Fool's" joke. Since dpastern got virtually everything wrong in his/her post, what can we do but laugh at it. I can pretty much guarantee Irvine would get the bigger laugh were he to see dpastern's post.

The bit I was disputing was your claim that drivers like Hamilton etc would likely not have made it and I'm afraid that is 100% pure speculation. The examples I've given you demonstrate that. You want to keep kidding yourself that's your prerogative, but please don't try to claim such an obvious guess as factual in any way.

I see you've resorted to your usual aggressive and insulting behaviour by intimating I have a "complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors." It's a bit wearing how you appear unable to have a civilised discussion without trying to bully your way through. But if you're going to be abusive at the very least you could try to get your quotes right. I said almost identical and even highlighted where the similarities were. It seems in your efforts to get personal you don't take the time to read what you're replying to. To add to the similarities, here's a quote from his wiki page:

Villeneuve took the record for most wins in his first championship season. He also became the first driver in Formula One history to finish second in his first championship season. Both records were later equaled by Lewis Hamilton in 2007.

But yeah, completely different, clearly

Yes, in fact they were completely different for the reasons that I already provided. Now that you've reverted to playing the victim I suppose the discussion will peter out...

No, they'll peter out because you're clearly being silly but are once again too proud to admit where you are wrong, as had had to be pointed out to you before. And if we're talking about reverting to type, you're going to your usual fallback and instead of reflecting on why someone might have that reaction you immediately pass the buck and pull out the victim label. Like in the Alonso discussion any dissent you immediately label as Alonso fanboys. It's your standard M.O. to just tag any opposition with a label so they have to spend time justifying their comments and deflecting from the actual subject matter and your misinformation.

There are enough similarities to make them almost identical, as I said, but you're trying to score mileage by making out I claimed they were identical, which is simply not true. The points I made should have made that clear, but you're just nit-picking on small things for reasons best known to yourself. It's just derailing the conversation when anyone can see that there are strong parallels

As regards victims, you once again have this peculiar blind spot where you seemingly are unable to comprehend how your own behaviour comes across. If you accuse someone of having a complete lack of understanding of the underlying factors, entirely unprovoked, how is it possible that you don't understand that is needlessly aggressive and confrontational, not to mention condescending? If you want to have a civilised discussion, act civilised. Leave out the accusations and personal remarks and you won't invite retaliation. It's not that hard.

Look Zoue, I'm not your shrink and I have no interest in talking about your feelings with you. JV's first 2 years were years where the car carried him to the success he achieved. He was easily bested by Hill as a rookie and, despite having a completely dominant car, made a meal of winning the title in his second year. Hamilton was not in a dominant car, bested his WDC teammate as a rookie and then won the championship in the second best car in year two. If you want to claim that they are "almost identical" then I'm going to have to disagree. Did I say that nicely enough for you?

Jacques Villeneuve was the best prepared rookie to enter F1, until Lewis Hamilton took over that title 11 years later. I also remember Villeneuve was on course to win his very first GP, until oil loss decided otherwise. In his first year, Hamilton finished level on points with a team-mate on his way out; that's not besting him, it is simply the way the season threw up different numbers of wins, 2nd and 3rd places - regardless of how impressive the new best prepared rookie was in 2007. Their car was indeed not dominant, but it was a match for the rival car.

The similarities between the first two years of Hamilton and Villeneuve are clear, and in both cases the qualities of their cars led to the results we saw. Their talents as drivers weren't the same, but that is never an achievement; you have to work with what you were given. Ending up in the best cars is not necessarily an achievement either; it is the logical consequence of the business of F1. Villeneuve's career took a serious hit when the gamble of joining his friend/manager in setting up a new team didn't go as hoped. He wasn't the first, and won't be the last to suffer that kind of setback.

The whole "best prepared rookie" thing is hyperbole. The path that Hamilton took to F1 was extremely similar to most other drivers. He went from Formula Renault 2.0 to F3 to GP2. Nothing unusual there except for the fact that he won championships at every level. Villeneuve came up in the North American system and won in Indy before coming to F1. He had to adapt to the European tracks and system. I don't think either of them had some kind of advantage of being "the most prepared".

Hamilton did, in fact, best Alonso during his rookie season and he did it despite Alonso having #1 status for the first 5 races of the season. Alonso actually finished artificially close due to the way Hamilton's season came off the rails in the last 2 rounds.

The idea that Hamilton's results from his first two years are owed to the car to the same extent that JV's are is a joke. Did you watch both of them in their early days? The Williams in 96'-97' was every bit as dominant as the Mercedes from 2014-2016. That was a car that had no business losing and JV almost dropped the championship to MS in 97' despite the massive advantage the car gave him. In 96' Damon Hill comfortably beat JV in the same car. By comparison; McLaren and Ferrari were in close battles for the titles in 2007-2008 and Ferrari were the team with the marginally faster car. Hamilton beat Alonso in his rookie season in the same car and then won the title in 2008.

The impact of the car for JV was MUCH greater. Without having a dominant car, he would never have won the championship. He in fact never even won another race after those two years. Hamilton's car gave him the opportunity to fight for the championship but it did not give him an advantage in that fight.

You really think the performance levels of the cars was close to equal between the 1996 Williams and the 2007 McLaren?

I don't believe I ever said it was, but in any event I'm not sure how that's relevant. JV set the bar for a rookie and Hamilton later equalled it. Statistically, their first two years were remarkably similar. Don't read anything more into it than that, please. I'm not claiming that JV is better than (or equal to) Hamilton, don't worry

Whilst seemingly ignoring the cars at their disposal and leaving it open that they were equally worthy, as a refresher to the performance of the 1996 Williams car the average qualifying gap to the next fastest car at each race was 0.51s.

To get some perspective on this the most dominant car in F1 history as it often gets called the 2014 Mercedes had a qualifying advantage of 0.62s, apparently more than half of the grid could have won races and even the WDC in that car?

Also let's not forget in respect to the Williams drivers that Schumacher was their closest rival who has to be seen as being several tenths of a second quicker than the both of them.

It's all irrelevant to the point being made, I'm afraid. You're confusing "almost identical" with "completely identical in every single way." Please don't let the fact that Hamilton's name is involved cloud your judgement on this.

As regards "apparently more than half the grid could have won races" in the 2014 Mercedes - are you seriously trying to contend there's any doubt about that?

I'm merely making comparison with the Williams in respect to this special fete accomplished by JV and how is it almost identical to debut in a dominant car as opposed to a none dominant car, the worse that JV could reasonable finish was second whilst the worst that Hamilton could reasonable finish was 4th.

This kind of measurement doesn't pass scrutiny, JV was basically driving a 2014 Mercedes whilst Hamilton was driving a 2017/18 Ferrari just to put some perspective on it in todays terms.

sorry, I did answer this but then the white pages deleted it all. I'll come back and do it again when I can summon up the energy.

Short version: Hill beat Mansell, comfortably

Not in qualifying.

In what universe? They had four races together, and Hill beat Mansell in three of the qualifying sessions. The fourth session was influenced by rain. And Hill beat Mansell in every race (in the final one, where Hill famously got hit by Schumacher, he passed Mansell right at the start and was leading him). So how is Hill not the victor in this scenario?

That looks reasonable close to me bearing in mind that Hill was in the car all season, I seem to be having a few parallel debates, a driver can apparently be in a car all season but still lack testing mileage.

Which corroborates what I wrote, thanks, although you seemingly missed out that the final qualifying was wet. Again, how is this not a victory for Hill?

You said that Hill beat Mansell comfortably, 3 times out of 4 he didn't in qualifying and let's not forget that Mansell was basically making guest appearances whilst Hill was in the car all season.